supreme court's's decision on the affordable care act. later, we discussed the policy implications of the affordable care act and efforts to repeal it. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: the president, at camp david this weekend. congress is in recess until next monday. the independence day celebration is set to begin in carnations capital. the headline from many leading pages this morning continue to focus on last thursday's historic ruling on health care.

we will spend much of this morning looking into the politics and policy around that union. but first want to take a look at this editorial from "the los angeles times." it is about vision. saying that the 2012 campaigns are missing vision. this is what it looks like on their website. you can join the conversation by giving us a phone call. for democrats, 202-737-0001. for republicans, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. and you can send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. host: our question to you this

morning -- are you getting a vision from the president or mitt romney this morning? let me go back to what was said in "the l.a. times." "americans did -- today are not interested in sound bites. so far republicans are cycling tired of promises from the reagan era, and their words ring hollow. republicans have been saying this for decades but have never put it into practice. george w. bush left a legacy of debt from two unfunded wars and benefits to the wealthy. taking aim at the president,

president obama has also failed to articulate what a second term would look like." again, from "at the l.a. times." are you getting the vision you want from your candidates? mitt romney, new hampshire, part of a bus tour that began about 1 1/2 weeks ago where he tried to articulate his view of the country. [video clip] >> for the last few years to many americans have been struggling and i and distress. the spirit of enterprise, the spirit that howard america's economic engines for growth and prosperity, that spirit still lives strong. it is the goal of this campaign and the mission of my presidency to nurture that spirit and see it flourish in this great land.

>> those comments came from -- host: those comments are from mitt romney. there is a story this morning on the front page of "the new york times." propelled by a torrent of blistering advertisements, the president is raising questions about mr. romney's commitment to middle-class."

host: mitt romney could, again, in this quarter, outpaced the president in funding. this is from last year, the family photo, and the story is from this year. the mitt romney vacation, a structured chance to unwind. calls.et your phone a vision from the country in this election year. this is the line for democrats. caller: good morning, how are you this morning? host: fine, thank you. caller: division from the republican party that i got is they want to take this back to the 1800's on some of these things. the people in the united states, they say they're

hurting. what they say they're going to be doing, it will only help the wealthy. division i get for obama is that he wants to help to move us forward and that everyone of us is equal. i do not see that from the republicans. host: howe, and in what area? caller: he wants to move forward in the financing of this country, by giving it back to the people. host: thank you. the president will be campaigning in ohio on thursday and friday, taking him through pittsburgh, pa., and into cleveland and areas in northeastern ohio. you can follow the campaign on our website, c-span.org

/politics. we have the latest from the fec and their chance to weigh in. next is patrice, independent line, new york city. good morning. caller: the vision that the president has, he wants everyone to pay their fair share. i do not want to have to pay more in taxes than someone who makes much more than i do. the revision of the republicans is keeping more money for my -- keeping more money for yourself. mine, mine, mine. i do not think that is fair. if i made more, i would pay more. i think that that is the vision that is good for the country. because then everyone would be able to take care of everyone else. host: thank you for the call. spartanburg, south carolina,

republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. having breakfast. first of all, about president obama, these calls are ludicrous coming from these democrats. they are so misinformed. and people saying that mr. obama is for everyone, things like this. why is it that people who like the health care bill, they are not going to get hit with this. this is the largest tax increase in the nation's history, this health care law. he is the deceiver in chief. before you cut me off, he

hammers mitt romney, the president hammers mitt romney about bain capital. if people would look up what mr. romney has really done in his life, he started stables and all kinds of other businesses that work out and employed well over 100,000 people. and then he went to france and was a visionary for two years. he has made it on his own. he is a self-made guy. i want to compare those two men. you have got two harvard law graduate. mitt romney has a business degree, also from harvard. one man that was half way raised by two muslim dads in indonesia, the largest muslim country in

the earth, and one raised in the united states of america, who come from good, american stock. mr. obama, like i said, two muslim dads and a mother who was married to them. you figure it out. host: i will let you enjoy the rest of your breakfast. "mitt romney requests a retraction -- demands a retraction."

host: you can read more of that at "the washington post" online. this is from entertainment news, health troubles based on the retraction that was taking place last thursday. host: dennis has something to say about this, saying that cnn

and fox bought a report on health care, saying that they were not about news, but about spain. saying that it is blame time for cnn and their dismal ratings. back to the issue of this los angeles times -- "the l.a. times" editorial. cindy, good morning. caller: how are you? host: fine, thanks. caller: do you not have a job to correct these people who call in? the man from south carolina, this is one of the biggest lies a man ever told. he was not raised but -- by two muslim fathers. he never met his father except one time in his life.

you have to stop them from calling in and lying. as far as visions, yes, both of them have visions. the mitt romney vision is to embrace the paul ryan budget. looking at that, the want to take from older people who have worked. the tape from people who cannot get out of their homes. retired people. people without jobs, bringing meals to senior citizens. children getting hot meals. they want to take medicare and turn it into a voucher. mitt romney does not have anything going for his so tho bring this president down. if you look at this president, this man graduated from harvard. he chose, as you will call

them, community organizing. he went to chicago and worked for $13,000 per year so that he could work for the people. he could have been like mitt romney, just as rich as mitt romney. this president has a vision. he wants to help people move forward. republicans did not get on board, and no matter how many staples you put in his path, thank you for listening to me. host: you can find more comments on our twitter page, twitter.com/c-spanwj. the question this morning -- are you getting a vision from the republican and democratic presidential candidates? this is from a professor this morning.

backers and opponents set to on how much in the program. from "the l.a. times," the u.s. worries are that it would end up words -- up towards -- up. many without air conditioning in this part of the country because of the storm on friday, with a related headline from "the baltimore sun." lewis is on the phone from utica, new york. good morning. welcome to the program. caller: this is my first chance to get through. first of all, i have a totally independent view. i am sick and tired of blaming republicans for what we hear on

c-span and cnn. there is the same old economic triple down with the rich taking away from the four. -- the rich taking away from the poor. now i am disabled living through the aftermath, there is a single republican coming back at him again. i want to keep up with what people are saying. when you get in a whole, it takes you a long time to get back out of it -- hole, it takes a long time to get back out of it.

i was getting to the american dream around bill clinton time. then comes bush. then you have two wars on the front of it. then you have the social pharmacy plan that is not funded. these are deep holes. obama is try to dig us back out of it. it makes no sense to me at all. host: charleston, south carolina, welcome to the program. caller: i feel that both the president and mitt romney have a vision for the united states, but the vision is different. one of them wants to carry on

what was carried on in the system that did not work. obama wants to try a new system that might give relief to all the poor people in an equal manner. i will say this, nothing can be done until we get a lot of that overhead from the congress. they do not want to move, they have no progress. most of them are on party-line, including what they do. [unintelligible] congressman, senators, should not be able to stay in a job. there should be a certain amount of years. host: thank you for the call and the comment. we will move on with important opinions, including this one

from the weekly standard. host: that is new this morning from inside of "the weekly standard." "justices, dividing line, getting blurrier.

"it was historic in more ways than one." host: that is this morning, from inside of "the washington post." we will go to the republican line. carl, west virginia, thank you for waiting. good morning. caller: any republican running for office is completely at a disadvantage. who in the world does not want

free stuff? that is what the democrats offer. someone is going to be paying for that free stuff you're getting, and it is the taxpayers. you know another thing? everything in this program is either george bush did it, ronald reagan did it, or if you disagree with obama you are a racist. i kind of get tired of hearing the kind of stuff. i wish that people would let up on this racism stuff, get smart, and vote for mitt romney. host: thank you for the call, from west virginia. chicago, this is available on our website. one of the questions -- if reelected, what would a second term look like for the president? what is his vision for another four years?

[video clip] >> we did it your ways and it was a failure for the country. there may be issues on which we fight and disagree, but where we disagree -- where we can agree is on where we find that common ground. host: eric is on the phone from atlanta, democratic line, good morning. caller: bush and reagan destroyed this country. the vision of reagan was the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. this was the program that they put together. not letting it democrat impose his vision of the united states. also, reagan, it was set in iran. reagan was no great president. clinton got back in office and

if you look through history, the republicans do not know how to govern. they know how to lie and manipulate the media, just like mitt romney. if you look at his assistant, please let me finish, this is a man that talked about president obama, the mormons hate the blacks. they believe that blacks cannot get into heaven. host: i have got to stop there. when you use the word hate, it draws the line. caller: these people are extremists. thank you. host: we will move a al, from albany, new york. caller: good morning. i have not called in in a while. here's how i see it. i was never crazy about president obama, but i did vote

for him. mitch mcconnell has come right out and said that he will do everything he can to make him a one-term. mitch mcconnell of its $2 million from the oil industry as a campaign contributions. i see the obama contribution as being an uplifting majority for middle and lower class americans. economically. another point i would like to make for -- as far as that rondos, in 1969 i was drafted and i went to vietnam. in 1969, mitt romney dodged the draft and went to the champagne valley of france to recruit for the ministry of the mormon church. the millions of young men and women of my generation that did

fulfill our obligations to the military and the country should remember that. his sons will not serve. host: this is from twitter -- host: from seattle, "the reason is the professional as a nation of political philosophy." host of this comes from john, in lexington, ky.

host: the president was speaking in atlanta this week, here are a portion of his remarks. caller -- [video clip] we need to do together those things that we do better together. [applause] so, we made investments in science and technology, investing in products that led to the internet, google. to our government, we made these investments in basic research. we did all of these things throughout our history. not because they were good for one particular person or one

particular group. but because they were good for all of us. we understood that we rise -- we would rise and fall as one people, one nation. that is my vision for america. that is what i have been fighting for for the last 3.5 years. that is why i am running for a second term as president of united states -- president of the united states of america." host: the president is back on the campaign trail this weekend. this editorial is from drew weston. he poses this question -- why has not -- why has neither candidate offered a clear vision that resonates with the american people?

host: you can get the entire editorial on the website for "the l.a. times." let's go to the republican line. jerry, on the phone from nebraska. good morning. caller: be vision of obama for this country is the same as george soros. we are run out of there. he went to england and tried to manipulate them there and almost destroyed the economy. he got run out of there. now he is in the united states trying to do the same thing. he has been behind the obama presidency from the start. he is a communist. whatever george soros says, that is what obama is going to do.

host: a new cover story, talking about roberts rules, the court, and you, from "time magazine." it has been a rough few days. host: back to your calls on the issue of whether there is an issue with these republican candidates -- an issue with these two candidates. caller: the obama vision is quite evident.

he is a progressive individual as far as the future for us all. his vision is otherwise completely the opposite. i want to say one other thing regarding the supreme court decision and health-care laws. the chief justice made the decision that the supreme court was held in esteem by the american people. i think that if he had not, the supreme court would have been looked down on even more. there's definitely something that can be done, and there are plenty of more votes left for the sky in the supreme court. the chief justice is going to show us he is a real

conservative by voting down these laws? do not be dismayed. he is going to do what conservatives do. host: in the next hour we will focus on the politics behind the ruling and what it means for states, individuals, health care providers, that is all coming up as we continue to dig into the details of what the court ruled on thursday. what it means for the election year and beyond, assuming that things are not taken up by a republican congress or president. michael has this point, from our twitter page. host: what we want to point out from this morning from inside of "the washington post," the passing of issac shamir.

the former israeli prime minister was a gunman in the smallest and most violent underground faction fighting for a jewish state. he died in a nursing home in israel. the announcement came from the current prime minister, benjamin netanyahu. petersburg, good morning. is there a vision amongst the republican presidential candidates? caller: americans should not be looking at this as a race in political terms. it is not a race, we are not voting on a man because of

color. but when you look at them for what they are, they both graduated from harvard, they both come from failed administrations, and both gentlemen are into health care, they're both socialists. i do not understand why america cannot stop and realize when it is time for a third party. i am speaking as a republican. both of these men are the same and the differences between them are extremely minimal. that is the only thing i have to say. thank you. host: thank you for the call. this is from john in north carolina. host: another story, from the associated press, after the nuclear disaster in japan, dozens of protesters shouted and danced at the gate. the first plant to go back on line since japan shut down all of its route -- disasters for

safety check. returning to operations despite the deep divisions in japanese public opinion. the stories from the associated press this sunday morning. more from it romney as he campaigns across the key battleground states, like new hampshire. [video clip] >> i have a different vision for america and the future. i know we will have to do to give them a better chance for the future. i see an america where free enterprise is nurtured and celebrated, not attacked. freedom and free enterprise are what create jobs, not government. [applause] a growing middle class, with

rising standards of living. i see children, more successful than their parents, with others congratulating them for their achievements, not attacking them for them. host of that speech is available as part of the c-span video library. the new york times book review list this week, "the amateur," it has been on the book for this for five weeks. "on broken" is no. 4. host: many of these books are "booktv on c-span 2's

." democratic line, colorado, good morning. caller: i have two questions, thoughts about divisions for jobs and mitt romney, health care and how he feels. the vision for jobs, i am wondering how or why, if the job is so important, now or after the presidency, the congress is suddenly going to vote to increase job creation? the health care, as i understand it, in massachusetts is similar to the health care program that president obama has now. about the businesses that mitt romney has to create jobs, i have been to some business

schools. how is he so much better because he has a business degree? you have to project for years and years on the income, or get a net balance on what you have to cover the extremes of a job. the business itself, and we are now in trillions of dollars of national debt. he is not going to create jobs without the income to back it. in a business sense, with all of that? host: thank you for the call. from one of our viewers self- described as c-span democrat -- i know the of romney vision and it terrifies me. host: thank you for your calls

and your points of view. you can send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org, or join us on our facebook page. indianapolis, good morning, welcome to the program. caller: i am definitely in joining this program, with its different visions of a people are saying about this presidency. but please, i will do this in the most articulate way that i can. if you have cancer and you do not treat it, it does not go away, it gets worse. i will just say -- imagine if i said -- hey, identify what it is and what it is worth. a lot of people are in opposition to what is going on in this current administration. he had a vision to get rid of

osama bin laden. he had a vision to save general motors. but romney said to let them go bankrupt. there are three things this president has done for me. he brought home my son-in-law from iraq. he killed osama bin laden. and then there is the fact that he is doing things to battle against the vision that mitt romney has. then obama is trying to expose that mitt romney wants to do the same thing that the previous administration did. so, it is these people that cannot deal the fat with the fact -- that cannot deal with the fact of the matter of what he has done. we should be able to call it what it is. c-span cannot handle the truth, because it is what it is. host: thank you for the call. this is from our twitter page.

host: if you want to read the entire editorial from "the l.a. times," it is available on our face of page, facebook.com/c- span. mary, cincinnati, good morning. caller: this is my first time ever calling in. i have been listening to people coming on your program, calling in, writing in, talking about this president. this is the best u.s. president i have ever had. everyone watched the bush should ministration tear down this world. we elected a black president to come in here to try to help everyone. not just one person, but everyone.

i do not understand how anyone can take a president that is trying to help people in these united states. we are in the united states, not those other countries. this is the richest country in the whole world. if people want to hate this man, i do not understand it. by the way, this man is not a muslim. he has done said that 1000 times. he is a christian that believes in jesus christ, and so alive. thank you. caller: -- host: thank you. one more from sasha -- let's open switch -- swiss -- swiss bank accounts. it is election day in mexico. this morning, from "the washington post," "mexican leader legacy tarnishes party."

a freelance journalist and author of the book, "mexico: democracy interrupted," joining us from mexico city. thank you for being with us. calguest: thank you. host: what are the polls telling us? guest of the candidates are [unintelligible] who is way ahead in most polls. the next few main candidates, ruling the government party candidates, the biggest is about 20%. there is some question on the polling.

very few of them have a probable bencher kind of model. -- venture kind of model. could be less, could be more. it depends. host: let me ask you about the p.a.n. party, the party of the former president. they came to power after decades of the pri party. this appears to be a comeback for pri, the institutional revolutionary party. why? caller: why -- guest: why a comeback? host: yes. guest: it has to do with the times. the office in 2000, the wave of excitement that there would be something new, he did not really try and change the old structure of power, the old structure and

way of doing politics, without any really significant degrees. the institution, the legitimacy of this -- the legitimacy of the institution began to rise. his way of showing that he was in control was to push forward effectively against the drug cartels. really, in the meantime, the economy has been running up the storm ok, but it is not growing by any means, the race, satisfying the means of what is needed. they were a big disappointment. at the same time, they have had this fairly successful makeover in the form of [unintelligible] who is favored to win.

he is young, good-looking, energetic and smooth. a lot of people p have of peopler -- people have forgotten what pri was. host: out with a new book this month, "mexico, democracy interrupted." most recently in this country because of the supreme court ruling, focusing a lot on immigration is it an issue in this election? caller: i cannot even remember a debate in which i have heard the words mentioned. it has been a non-issue. there have been very few substantive debates in this election at all. it has been about the changing of a very vague concepts.

real change, from the left, having not had a chance in power since the transition to democracy, they wanted this to be different. it is all about this very convoluted concept around change. host: as someone who has been watching what is going on in mexico and in this country, are there parallels to the mood south of the border and " we are facing in this country? -- and what we are facing in this country? caller: -- guest: there is disengagement, fatalism. also something new in this election. something surprising.

but this is a dull election. then there was the development of this student movement, which they called themselves, the 132. a complicated group. there are some developments of the student movement that focused on opening up democracy in a more profound way in coverage of the elections, coverage between politicians and big media conglomerate. that spark of activism happened with that movement. it looked unlikely that it would impact the results of the election. it has changed in urban areas. host: one last question as we try to draw parallels to what we do in this country. asked if furious, a failed drug

smuggling operation -- gun smuggling operation attempting to follow the flow of illegal drugs. has the drug issue played out in this campaign? or is it mostly the economy in your country? caller: -- guest: again, it is really need there. the violence issue is huge here. the drug issue, less so. fast and furious, the investigation, it happened here, but not with enormous amounts of detail. basle court again, not even on the major problems facing mexico. the economy is not really the problem, but how they will make it grow faster, grow at a way that approaches the rates required to provide jobs for the people on the market every year.

the promise that it will all get better, the same with the drug wars. they all say that they will be able to bring the violence down, but the different approaches, the specifics, the what was right and wrong, that has not really been figured out yet. it has been a strange campaign in that sense. it has been very personality based. it is that mexico is going in the wrong direction and it needs to be righted. host: jo tuckman, her book is out this month. "mexico, democracy interrupted." joining us live from mexico city. thank you for sharing your perspective with us. guest: my pleasure. host: you are watching "washington journal," on c-span.

the start of a holiday week as we celebrate our independence. coming up in a couple of minutes, we will focus on the details of the health care law and what it means for this election and what it means in terms of policy. gail russell chaddock and edward-isaac dovere will be joining us in just a few minutes. later, ron pollack and joe antos. we are back in just a moment. ♪

>> next weekend, had to the state capital named in honor of thomas jefferson, jefferson city, missouri. saturday, noon eastern, literary life on c-span to, the home of jean carnahan and family life, from her life book, "if walls could talk." then, from ancient mesopotamia to the university of missouri, stories behind eight miniature babylonian tablets. sunday, 5:00 p.m. -- >> at one time this was call the bloodiest 47 acres in america. >> a former ward and takes you

through the missouri state penitentiary. warden takes- were you through the missouri state penitentiary. next weekend, from jefferson city, saturday at noon, sunday at 5:00 eastern, on c-span 2 and c-span 3. >> this is the conversation we need to have that no one is willing to have. what role should the government play in housing and finance? >> the pulitzer prize-winning columnist, gretchen mortensen, detailed the subprime lending collapse and a continuing issue of government subsidize home ownership. >> if you want to subsidize housing in this country and the populace agrees that it is something we should subsidize, put it on the balance sheet. make it clear, evident. make everyone aware of how much it costs.

when you deliver it through these third party enterprises, fannie mae and freddie mac, when you deliver the subsidy from the company would private shareholders and executives who can extract a lot of that subsidy for themselves, that is not a very good way of subsidizing home ownership. we have seen the end of that movie, it was 2008. host: more with gretchen morgan sent, tonight -- morgansen, tonight on "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome gail russell chaddock, washington editor of "the christian science monitor. congratulations on your promotion. and edward-isaac dovere. thank you for being with us. these are headlines from a couple of days ago, but they do symbolize where this is going.

this is from "the daily news." from "the new york post." a picture of the president, smiling with doctors garb, saying "argh." [laughter] guest: this is the big story of the week and has done a lot to redefine the way that obama looks going into the next couple of months. forget about the actual court decision and the law, which is important, but politically this was very significant for the president. guest: it is not only the bigger issue of the week, but i think it is the big issue of the year. host: this is from "time magazine." what do the rules of roberts mean for the court and obama?

had he flipped? the headline is the new power gain -- "did he flip"? what did you learn? guest: there is a lot of speculation about what happened here. first of all, there was a thought that he might vote to uphold the law in the case of a 6-3 with anthony kennedy. there was a sense that something strange happened. in addition, in the ruling itself you see that the defense is not like most, where they grappled with majority opinion. they went off on their own direction. there is a sense that given the fact that it was a surprise move for roberts, given the fact that the dissent does not look like most, it may have been in the majority opinion that was at

some point abandoned and moved away from. host: there are even some typos -- guest: there are even some typos that suggests that. host: john roberts, "dealing more than a historic ruling, deliberately or not he has sent a message to politicians." was that a motivating force? guest: it seems to be. would you look at the ammunition that you see being rallied on the democratic side, especially, about the court, and who these bid were, it is bush vs. gore all over again. the court is of the only institutions left that has any standing with the public. something we know that judge roberts feels a great deal

about. host: this is from "the new york times." guest: it is obviously impossible to get into john , but it seems he is saying to the country -- look, if you do not like this law, there is an election in november and you can vote for a republican majority in congress to repeal the law, but do not think of the court as the place to come to to undo the work done through the normal legislative process. host: normally we do not focus on the weather, but this is from "the baltimore sun."

maryland, washington, d.c., hard hit by this storm friday on -- on friday evening. caller: there was -- guest: there was no power at his home, so if there was payback, it did not come from pat co. it is just a symbolic gesture. host: he joked about this on friday. guest: he is off teaching in malta. [laughter] guest: that was the point. host: let's get to your calls and comments, focusing on the politics of this ruling. what does it mean for the republican and democratic campaigns? as always, you can join the conversation on our twitter page.

join us on facebook as well. let me show you how the mitt romney campaign responded thursday and friday with the ruling. [video clip] >> the bottom line is that the supreme court has upheld health care law. >> in a few months, americans will cast their ballots and make a choice. do we continue on a pass of rock -- a path of rising health control costs? do we continue with massive tax increases to fund a $2 trillion program? do we continue to stifle our economy with a government that discourages higher ruling? ♪ the supreme court may have made their decision, but the american people have not. >> the next president of the

united states will repeal obama care. >> a host: what has happened is this has moved back into the political course. one analysis over the wind saying the president won the legal battle but mitt romney may have won the political battle. guest: healthcare is not popular with the public and the president had an interesting comment when he said in 10 years we will look back and see this was the right decision. he is trying to get people to take the longer view because the short view is not attractive. insurance policies are going up. immediate promises don't look like they will be kept. some states are way far behind in setting up exchanges. the president has to maintain a sense that this is historic and will take a while but in the end

americans will be happy with it. host: going into the decision many expected it might have been a 5-4 decision with justice kennedy the key swing vote or a 6-3 decision and that is what was said why did justice roberts fail to get the 6-3 majority. do you have an answer? guest: justice kennedy really didn't agree with the law. what he said from the bench thursday is he called it a vast judicial overreach. dis-- this is not just that i disagree but he was opposed so there was no hope getting him on the side of upholding the law and justice roberts decided he was going with that. host: we will go to this editorial critical of the ruling thursday saying hospitals will see the bad debt imposed on them by uninsured patients, manufacturers of medical devices will face a 2.5% tax on gross

sales which will cut up to 40% profits. an example of how tax policy is crafted by a government big business coalition and small businesses will see their healthcare costs rise and it is supposed to provide some tax credit relief so confusing as to be unusable. guest: there is a lot of pain in the short term. not all saw this as a total loss. the chief justice's opinion that weapons inspector into the kphrs clause, the commerce clause is huge. that has been the judicial vehicle for most of congressional activism since the new deal. some conservatives are looking at that part of the decision saying victory for us. you cannot in the future have congress overreach the way it has getting into the lives of

americans. we will see. but it is a mixed decision. some are declaring victory. host: the president and romney campaign reportedly had two or three different versions of speeches ready to go. guest: they were prepared, we were prepared for several event bombities. -- eventualities. i'm sure you were as well. it is the supreme court. there is no way to predict what would happen and you saw the first couple minutes after the decision came out several outlets got it wrong because they were rushing to get it. we and the president and mitt romney and every or news organization in town was prepared for this to go in several d directions. i do think the problem the president has is right now there are no real benefits that will be seen from the healthcare law between now and november. there is just the threat in

people's minds of what might happen because of this slamming -- looming on the horizon. but it is important because the president has won a victory. you think of the way he would be viewed if he -- if the court had the law.wn mitt romney had been pressing the idea he was the failed president that tried hard to get things done but was not very good at it. a court decision that struck down the law would have fed that and been dangerous for the president. host: this is the response from the president and his campaign on thursday. >> i know there will be a lot of discussion about the politics this, about who won and who loss. that completely misses the point. whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law in the

supreme court's decision to uphold it. if one of the more than 250 million americans that have health insurance you will keep your health insurance. this law will only make it more secure and more important. insurance companies can no longer up pose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive. they can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting children. they can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick. they can no longer jack up your premiums without reason. they are required to provide free preventive care lake checkups and mammograms. young adults under 26 can stay on their parents' healthcare plans. seniors receive a discount on prescription drugs. by this august nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative cost and c.e.o. bonuses and not enough on your healthcare. all of this is happening because of the affordable care act.

today i'm as confident as ever that when we look back five from now or 10 years from now or 20 years from now we will because we had the courage to pass this law and keep moving forward. host: that ad is available on our website. one of the interesting things in the president's speech and in that ad from the romney campaign the president is trying to explain what is in this healthcare bill. guest: the president tried to push this bill through in various ways, but in the initial stages one of the things he came under criticism for in hindsight not explaining enough what this was going to do for people, so the president is in this

now of having the law upheld but still most people don't even understand what it would do for them and what it means in the way that the healthcare will be changed in this country. but one of the important things the president needs to do is make sure people are not focusing on the big word republicans would like them to focus on out of the supreme court which is tax. john roberts ruled to uphold the law but under the definition of the mandate that president obama really didn't want people talking about, which is it is ok to put this penalty there as long as you call it a tax. and if barack obama can get people to think about the stories, the effects it will have on people's lives rather this is a big tax increase, that is where he wants to be politically. host: here is the 10 jury question. if the president wins in november the healthcare is disaster how will the roberts decision be viewed?

that is a what if question. guest: it is a great "what if" question. i think it depends in part on the other part of it. can congress continue to expand legislation in the lives of americans using the commerce clau clause? justice roberts said no. and you had even the affirmation of that majority some of the liberal justices saying no, we don't agree with that part of it. and it is an open question as to whether that part of it has the force of law or precedent for ongoing justices. the other aspect of it in listening to the ad, this isn't just an ad war between two campaigns. the supreme court decision citizens unite d we have citizens with undisclosed funding who have leaped on this,

americans for prosperity started a $9 million campaign. crossroads called for a national campaign all making the same point. this is about taxing you and undermining your possibility of getting a job. host: if you join us on c-span radio on channel 119 our guess z are the political editor of the christian science monitor. her work is available on line. and the deputy white house editor for politic can he. let's go to the line. caller: i want to say one thing. as far as this election coming up goes, i have no -- i'm hopefully and cautiously optimistic that obama will be

elected for four more years. that is my opinion. and i think think landmark decision is a feather in his cap and will be his legacy for years to come. and each thing he has done from -- you know, with this bill, he has y in everything pursued since he has been president, he has come through for the american people. and all he wants is a clear playing field for all of us. equality for every last one of us. and people who can't afford -- this has been a breath of fresh

air for the people. thanks for the call. would you like to respond? guest: just the problem with that argument is that right now most people care about the economy and jobs. i think about 5%, when asked, list healthcare as their top concern. so, the president and democrats, who took a battering in the last election, lost the house and lost, i think, seven senators in campaigns where healthcare was the main issue. so, they don't look forward easily to another campaign where is the main issue unless the president can do what steve was pointing out, trying to make clear to people what the caller said, that this is and you wantortant to overlook the economy and focus on the historic importance of this legislation. host: inside "new york times" a look at major rulings in the term which wrapped up last week.

you can see some significant decisions many were 5-4. john says the difference between this 5-4 and the previous 5-4 decisions, this one had a kevin active vote with progressives. on the two key issues the more liberal members won. and immigration. guest: those are the two issues people were thinking a lot about but as a whole term we finished up there were other decisions this week that went in ways that people were not expecting or might not have wanted from the more liberal perspective. one of them was the case that came down on monday that upheld citizens united. there was a challenge because of a month state campaign law that the court said no, there is no way to get around citizens united. there are no limits that you can put on corporate financing for

campaigns. so, i think it would be foolish to see just the health care ask decision and immigration decision as making it that the court had a liberal leaning term. host: we will talk about that montana law tomorrow morning on "washington journal." one other point from "new york times" is that the justices decided 65 cases after hearing arguments and 10 in summary fashion. guest: a very disturbing problem. to what extent has the media so misled the american people that what appeared as a great

surprise in fact wasn't? you saw a lot of the mistakes in the first few seconds after the decision was announced because the justice began talking about the commerce clause people said he is going to get rid of the mandate therefore the law goes down. that was wrong. in the pressure to be fast and the pressure to be grabby, i wonder if we are simplifying to the extent that nuances of public life are getting lost. that may be something that journalism reviews will have a field day on. guest: the other thing that i think you saw when they were in the three days of argument before the court it is hard to read the justices. you might say it is impossible to read them. people were focused on trying to get some sense out of what happened in court those three days and there were a lot of questions that were coming from the justices that seemed very

combative and people were trying to read into that. there was a somewhat stumbling performance from the attorney general that people thought maybe that would affect it. but what was lost sight of in that is these are the nine most jurists ind esteem ed you eed the country and ruling on something that would have a great impact on the country and to think we could have guessed off of a few questions that were asked or that it would have mattered that the attorney general cloaked on his water for -- choked on his water and stumbled when they had to think about these big issues is kind of foolish. host: the "new york post" points out that mark whitaker said he was disgusted after cnn it mistakenly reported first that

the supreme court had overturned the law and david hainckley looking at the ratings troubles with cnn but the biggest buzz they got was from its healthcare ruling gaffe. you want to get the story first, you know and you want to get it right. guest: it is a problem. we live and die by hits and being quick is the way to be first and being quick is also the way to be wrong. guest: i work for politico and nobody ever accused us of being slow to jump on a story. but on thursday morning we had reporters all over the court and outside the court and people in the newsroom and we waited until we had heard what the justice, what justice roberts said and had read the decision. you needed to read to page four of the decision to get to what actually happened. we made the decision and going

in it thursday morning and then as everything was happening, it was about 10:20, that we would wait the extra three or four or even 10 minutes to make sure we got it right. but it is a constant struggle. host: we have the call from new on the line for independents. welcome to the program. are you with us? good morning. i would like to thank forker governor romney from massachusetts. he deserves a lot of credit for creating the blueprint for obama care. i live in the state of i lived in the state of please and i was a former resident of the state. mr. romney cannot run away tfro being involved in universal healthcare. host: thanks for the call. he brings up a key point that if

you look at the massachusetts law there are a lot of similarities between what he implemented and federal law. how does he get around that? guest: with great difficulty. especially if you come into a general election. his biggest problem is probably during the primary race where he had to convince conservatives that he was one of them, having been the governor of a liberal state and having, as the caller said, giving birth to obama care. however, now that the court has spoken and the issue is squarely in politics, it has helped rally the base because this is the only option left to get rid of obama care, to have a republican in the white house and have strong are republican representation in the senate take it back. so, i think you see people that otherwise said is he really conservative enough, this mormon

thing, whatever, healthcare becomes the square issue in this campaign. there is no alternative for conservatives but to rally behind somebody they have doubts about. host: it is said i listened to the case in march and predicted the court would uphold the health care reform. i never wavered. bonnie is on the republican line from maryland. caller: i have a comment and a question. my comment is when i was 62 an uninsured driver hit me apnd i had to go on medicaid and it made for everything. name brand drugs and everything. once i turned 65, they took me off of medicaid and put me on medicare. now i pay a co-payment for

everything. you can't get name brands unless it is approved. you can't get tests unless they are approved. and my question is, isn't it true that this new obama care has done nothing more than throw the seniors under the bus it doesn't cover anything? it doesn't governor glass -- doesn't cover glasses, dental, name brands. you can't get tests unless medicare aparagraphs it. so, both the democrats and republicans are throwing the seniors under the bus. we are no more value so you are going to throw us in the home, no teeth to eat with, you can't see. it is ridiculous. host: the next hour we will focus much more on the specifics of the ruling and what it means for health insurance providers, small businesses, individuals. we will ask that question as well.

you want to weigh in on her point of view? guest: i think we have seen just the beginning of this. because one thing the current health care reform didn't really do was get into cost contain me ment. and we are just beginning that. it was part of the initial impetus for healthcare reform but it was dropped. remember the discussion of death penalties and that was talk about throwing seniors under the bus. that was a very emotional argument about why cost be bad.ent would but it will come back. if you look at any graph about healthcare, it basically eats up gross national product in the foreseeable future. something has to be done. and to individuals it will look like one after another cutback. host: the umpire strikes back using that word because that is how john roberts described himself during the confirm atat

hearings the first to appear from behind the curtains at a.m. sharp and forced a tight grin and scanned the audience which on this historic day >> roberts explained why he sided with the four liberal justices not because he thought the healthcare law was good policy but because he thought not a constitutional reason to invalidate the individual mandate at the score of the law. stella has this point on the twitter page. burning the flag is but is it right and does it do good? so the debate continues. ann is on the phone from greensboro, north carolina. welcome to the program. morning.good i think that this points out with romney exactly how much a

man with no principles he is. how can you run against a program that you developed? the healthcare program. and the person who helped him write the program also helped the president write it. guest: romney has a problem here in that he has that in his past. but this brings out that he has yet to present exactly what he would do for the healthcare system if he were elected president. you saw even in the comments i made on thursday right after the court decision where he spoke about things that he wanted to be in the law that are actually in the obama health care reform. so, it comes to a point that many people are starting to pick up about mitt romney, that he has yet to lay out his plans of what he would do as president. he said he won't do it because he doesn't want people to pick them apart.

but when it companies to the healthcare system there are people motivated in the republican base who just want to get rid of the obama reforms no matter what and will be extra energized to get rid of them. but there are going to be people looking for some level of explanation from mitt romney of what he would do and for voters who are undecided who they will go for between obama and romney still and still until the last week of october, they are going to be looking for some sense of what would a second obama term look like and a first romney term look like. neither candidate has laid out too much in detail about what the answers to either of those questions would be. host: we will talk more about the politics behind me on capitol. the house and senate in recess and come back july 11. henry waxman is the ranking democrat on a key committee

looking at the healthcare law. he's joining us on the "news makers" program after the washington journal. here is a preview on that. [video clip] >> it was said there will be a vote july 11 on repealing the full law. what is the democrat strategy for dealing with that vote politically and do you think there will be more democratic defectio defections? in you voted on this january of 2011 there were three democrats that supported it. do you think there will be more? >> i don't know. there are more republicans than democrats in the house and they passed it just as they have already done. we still don't know what they would replace it with. they are going to repeal it? a lot of people will get insurance for this. a lot of americans will need there because they will lose their skrbgs.

when they have health insurance through their jobs and if they have a collide with an illness they won't be able to get insurance for that child. this assures americans that they will have is the security of health insurance. i wish the republicans would say look, they fought it, they lost, the supreme court said it is constitutional. let's do something to get people working and get the economy moving, not just rehash this issue over and over again. host: henry waxman the ranking democrat on the house energy and commerce committee and reminiscent of the snoopy cartoon, take the ball and go home. we heard from the democratic leader the highest court in the land ruled on healthcare and it is the end of the debate but that is not the case. guest: no, it is not mainly there is an election coming up. it is interesting like news we are prepared for the purpo

or all sorts of things except for what happened. republicans were prepared to win this. speaker of the house, said publicly we really have to be careful not to spike the ball. don't celebrate too much. not a problem. but has a big chunk of this law been on the floor after this that you would have seen house republicans come out with a whole series of proposals. they had to. they content look as if they didn't care about all of the uninsured people and issues going on in healthcare. they had to produce something. what would it have been? we won't know now because there isn't a lot of incentive to say what you would do when there is so much political capital to be gained from trashing what the already done. but we know something about it. we know republicans are talking about tort reform. that is, try to change the medical system so the doctor isn't afraid of being sued unless he has a patient go through 42 tests when two or

three would do just as well. it is that kind of element. think of ways to change the existing system that republicans clamor they can do but with this decision there is no more incentive for them to do it until after the election. host: another says i get it governor romney will tell us what he will did after he gets in office. guest: on the congressional side i think we know on july 11 there will be a vote in the house to repeal obama care and it will pass. we can say that. because the house republican majority is more than enough. host: and this will be the second time they have voted on it. guest: i think we can also say with pretty much certainty, maybe not 100% but 98%, that several at least democratic members of congress are going to vote for the repeal, too. you saw that just this past week when the contempt vote for attorney general came up. there were 17 democrats that voted for it because this is an

issue that perhaps will play very differently in house races and senate races than it does for the presidential race. i do think the president is in somewhat stronger shape himself going into the summer and november with the supreme court decision going the way it did. but members of the house and senate are going to be in a position of defend iing a tax tt they supported in swing districts and red states where democrats hope for pickups. you see that going on very much the democratic members are pulling away from the healthcare reform, pulling away from the president. doing what they can to create distance. in north dakota, where it is a democratic seat that the democrats are helping to retain but seems an uphill battle it say the least. the democratic nominee there did everything she could to say she did not support the obama health care reform. because it is a problem in the house and senate races in a way

that i think could be incredibly important. that is what guest: they said this week that part of the rationale is that this will go further down the ballot. they think it is the kind of election that could turn -- issue that could turn the election. host: we will look at the policy later in the program. robert has this point on our twitter page. a private solution always has a government alternative. when the government takes over, what alternative will you have? guest: @isaacdovere. guest: @russellchaddock.

host: good morning, ben. wartburg? thank you. caller: if this person is so smart like the guy from georgia said, how does he figured the people are going to pay for this insurance when we have lost our homes and jobs? it is not a democrat or republican deal. it is a millionaire deal. the fat cat bankers and insurance companies are the ones going to prevail over this. the poor people are just getting

poorer. like the lady said, they threw the seniors under the bus. guest: the caller has raised the heart of the political question. no matter what you know about politics or read, when you go to the voting booth, you ask yourself how you feel. am i better off? it is the quintessential question. it is not hypothetical. it is real. people will vote in november about how they feel about all lot in november. host: the obama campaign has raised about $60 million. the quarterly report will be coming out. we do know from the romney campaign within the first couple of hours on line to raise over $4 million. guest: it is not very different. it is more than the average day

would be in a month, but it is not a huge difference. it is not likely would have raised no dollars at all. they have energized their fund- raising base with this. it seems like they are prepared to have money to fight the president based off of the health care decision. the obama campaign was announced repeatedly whether they have a fund-raising influx, and they declined to get into it. it suggested the romney campaign was pulling money in from this and the obama campaign was not. when politicians raise money, we hear about it. host: john said the one thing different about romney care is if i did not want it, i could move out of massachusetts. lee asks, is a traffic ticket a

tax? guest: the democrats will press the argument to get into people's minds in those sorts of terms. traffic tickets to raise money for the municipal or state coffers. that is what they will try to get this into people's minds as. the chief justice called it a tax. that is what a lot of republicans will be doing it, whatever they can get people to focus on. host: the term obamacare is a slur word, she says. we need universal health care. two different points.

on the term "obamacare," which the white house and campaign seemed to be increasing. guest: we had discussions about it. we decided not to use obamacare at the "christian science monitor." if someone uses it in a quote you are stuck with it, but not to embrace it. the criticism was the president was not involved enough, that he had thrown it over to nancy pelosi and a house in congress and that was a mistake. we know is the president's signature program, but his handwriting was not on those first drafts in an obvious way. guest: the president last summer said he knew -- he said he liked

the people called it obamacare because he liked getting the message to us that he cares. guest: that is interesting. guest: one thing the obama campaign is trying to get people to think about when it comes to mitt romney is that he is detached and does not care about the plight of people and the president does. i think they are trying to pull out of the slur and turning it into a positive thing. host: james has this point. the chief justice has the mind of a 5-year-old. who appointed that fool? there were references to george w. bush this last week. guest: it is worth remembering that when george bush appointed justice roberts, he nominated

him to be an associate justice. when rehnquist died, he moved into being chief justice. it was seen as reliable, conservative, people call that a home run. there was a lot of adulation from the pick of roberts, especially following up on where the nomination process have been before that. myers was being talked about. conservatives are unhappy with where justice roberts was on it. but when he was appointed, that is not where people work. guest: and interesting trivia question for viewers. think about various justices. earl warren appointed by eisenhower. david souter, sandra

o'connor, they were all appointed by republicans and seemed to go off the reservation. here is the question. can you think of any justice appointed by a democratic president that went off the reservation to some extent? i cannot. i wonder why. are republicans not good at figuring out how people will evolve? host: 1. thing about the c-span of library is you get a chance -- one big thing about the c-span and libraries you get a chance to get an historical perspective. here is senator obama. [video clip] >> judge roberts record and history of public service, it is my personal observation he has used his formidable skills in opposition to the weak.

in his work in the white house, in the solicitors general office, it seems he has sided with those who are dismissive to those eradicating racial discrimination in the political process. in these papers he seemed dismissive of the concerns that everyone knows it is harder to make in this world and economy when you are a woman rather than a man. i want to take judge roberts at his words, that he does not like bullies and he sees the law and the court as a means of evening the plane to between the strong and weak. but given the gravity of the positions he will participate in during his tenure on the court, and ultimately have to

give more weight to his deeds and overarching political philosophy he has shared with those in power than to use your words to provided me in our meeting. the bottom line is this. i will be voting against john roberts' nomination. host: gail russell chaddock that is from the floor of the senate in 2005. john roberts went on to overwhelmingly when the confirmation by the senate. some perspective? guest: if you want even more astonishing video, look at the state of the union address in 2010 after the citizens united decision. the president looks straight at the chief justice sitting directly in front of him and let loose a critique of the court. he said -- in our lifetime we have not seen a president may

something like that -- make something like that. he would have to go back to fdr to see something like that. the president said a us senator, we will judge him by his deeds. i would say this deal has gone a long way to vindicating his concern. host: has this gone to the right and not the left? guest: a think the justice roberts' decision has changed the perspective on what right and left means. host: good morning. welcome to the "washington journal." democrats andn't republicans get along. to reply -- why can't we have the same coverage as the senate and house of representative?

guest: the reason they cannot get along is there are huge ideological differences in a different way of seeing the world. there has been polling about how people have reacted to the health care decision. half of the people think it was a good thing. half of the people think it was a bad thing. people see the issues differently. politicians in power are trying to retain power. politicians not in power are trying to change that. you saw how bitter the divisions were last summer over the budget battle. these are the opposing philosophies and ideologies of government. host: in recent polls showing only 6% rate health care as their main issue. romney is going to make it the main tenet of his campaign. is he? is the economy driving his

campaign? guest: he would like the economy to drive his campaign. this has been an unexpected lift because it will help to mobilize his base among the issues they care about. republicans feel their natural advantage is the economy. they do not seem to talk about it much. people realize they are in serious trouble. we talked this week about passing a bill that is going to help students with student loans so the rates will not double tomorrow as they would have otherwise. in the earlier budget deal, the grace period along exists. instead of getting months to get your bearings before you start paying the loans, you have no time at all. that is the kind of thing you do not have to say much about. students will know that. it will impact whether they are

showing up at the polls at all and who they vote for when they are there. host: first this e-mail -- and another point of view to your earliest -- earlier observation. comment? guest: that is an example that this proves my thesis. thank you. -- that is an example that disproves my thesis. thank you. if this caller has a twitter, i would be glad to follow him. host: we will get a reminder before the end of the program. let's go to tom in ohio on the republican line. caller: two >> statements and

one question about mr. roberts -- two quick statements and one question about mr. roberts. some states have more poverty than others. health care should be left up to the states. bear with me. upheld the mandate. i think mr. obama being a scholar in the constitution, he knew it would be a tax. he did not want to tell us it would be a tax. host: which goes back to our earlier . . -- which goes back to our earlier point about the republicans. guest: there is the sense that obama and democrats in congress pushed it forward under a guise.

could be a huge strike against them if played in the right way. this is a situation where it is hard to see how this will play out, what it will look like in two months. certainly mitt romney was expecting their to be a decision striking down the law. he may be relying on some energizing of the base. i think barack obama is happier with the decision than he might be otherwise. guest: it is nice not to have the signature achievement of your first term start down. host: you have more twitter followers because you have sparked a decision. their decisions should be based solely on the lot and application. guest: the point.

that is right. host: held big of a defining issue will it be -- how big of a defining issue will be when voters go to the polls? guest: i think it will be less important then. it will be about how people feel. are you hopeful for the future? do you think you lose your job? that has always been the number one issue in campaigns and will continue. guest: in the last year mitt romney has been running, every time the conversation is focused on the economy, he does better in the polls. we're going to see more conversation about the economy. this friday there's another monthly jobs report. there are four war between now and election, including one the friday before election day.

economy is not in good shape. it does not matter as much what happened with the supreme court on thursday. that is where the conversation will be. that is what i think most people will be voting on. host: politico and the "christian science monitor," gail russell chaddock the editor of the "christian science monitor." edward-isaac dovere from politico, thank you for being with us. we will continue the discussion on health care law. in a moment, ron pollack, executive director of families usa, and joseph antos will be joining us. we are back in a moment. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> the author writes about the president. >> harry truman goes to the white house and says to eleanor roosevelt, can i pray for you? she says, we need to pray for you. there were a lot of promises made. they said they would have to rent a larger hard to get all

the people jack kennedy promised the vice-president see to it that year. calvin coolidge may have been the last jeffersonian. he believed strongly in the limits of government will and federal power -- governmental and federal power. >> for questions and comments live at noon eastern. the middle east expert on the obama administration's response to the arab spring, iraq, and the peace process. tonight at 9:00. >> this is the conversation we need to have that nobody is willing to have. what role should the government play in how things are financed? >> sure details the subprime lending collapse, the detailed

-- she details the subprime lending collapse. >> if you want to subsidize housing and in the populous agrees is something we should subsidize, make it clear and evident. make everybody aware of how much it is costing. when you do it for the third party enterprises and deliver the subsidy through a public company with private sure movers and executives who can extract a lot of the subsidy for themselves, that is not a good way of subsidizing home ownership. we have seen that in 2008. >> more tonight at 8:00. "washington journal" continues. host: the details of the health care law and what it means for

our country. we want to introduce ron pollack, effective director of families usa, and joseph antos of the american enterprise institute. i want to focus on the big picture item. this headline, states facing big call on medicaid. what impact does this have on states? guest: the states have to decide whether they will expand medicaid or not. it is a big issue. the states are facing huge fiscal problems. financially, very difficult. politically, it is easier to have the government to you what to do. now they have to make up their mind. some states will take advantage of the enhanced federal pavement -- payments for medicaid for a few years. many states will have trouble

with that because they're facing big problems having to cut back programs to make a commitment that could cost millions of dollars of the next 10 years will be tough. guest: at the end of the day, all states will pick of the medicaid program. it is important to understand what the federal government is offering the states for the affordable care act is unprecedented generosity. in the first three years, the federal government will pick up 100% of the medicaid expansion. then it tried to stem, but it never goes below 90%. -- then it ratchets down, but it never goes below 90%. in the average medicare program, the government pays 56%. this is very generous. congress passed the children's health insurance over a decade

ago. while the funding is more generous than the regular medicaid, is nowhere near as generous as what is provided in the affordable care act for this expansion. every one of the 50 states decided to pick it up. i think every state will pick it up. orrin hatch is not exactly a friend of the affordable care act, but he thought the states would be crazy not to pick this up in the generosity. host: where does the money come from? now approaching a deficit of $16 trillion. who pays for it? guest: there is the state and federal payment. i have to agree with ron about whether the states will be eager to commit billions of dollars over the next 10 years. the answer is it will come from all of us. taxes are going to pay for this.

we're going to have to cut back programs. we have the huge deficit program. i think we will see a major battle next spring because the debt ceiling will again be a problem. this time, they're not going to defer to a super committee. they're going to have to make real cuts immediately. host: i would like to go to a couple of different scenarios and a quick response from you. for those uninsured right now, what is the law mean for them? guest: millions of people will gain health coverage through two different ways. for those middle or moderate income, they are going to get a tax credit subsidies on a sliding scale. these subsidies go deeply into the middle class. it goes to 400% of poverty. for a family of 4, it is

$93,000. it is provided on a sliding scale. people who need help will receive more help. that is going to be a way in which about half of the people who gain coverage will receive it. the other half is going to come through the medicaid program. the medicaid program is focused on the poorest of the poor. about half of the 34 million who will gain coverage will get it that way. host: what is your view? guest: it remains to be seen if the states will be ready to enroll people for insurance. 37 states have not even passed legislation to authorize movement in that area. it is true states like california, massachusetts, and maryland are doing reasonably well implementing.

if the insurance plans do not meet the standards, the money cannot flow. that is going to require information from government agencies that has never happened. we will seek a flow of information to the states. -- we will see a flow of information to the states, but i do not think we will see it next year. host: if someone has workers that are uninsured, what does this mean for a small-business owner. guest: those with 25 employees or less will be able to sign up on the exchanges. the problem will be for businesses above 25, still small businesses, still having trouble in this economy. but they have an obligation in forced by penalty to offer coverage or pay theenalty if

their employees go to the exchange and get the subsidies. host: if they pay the penalty does that mean they are injured? guest: the employer pays the penalty. the employees still have to buy insurance through the exchange. guest: the small businesses with fewer than 25 workers are already eligible for tax credit subsidies up to 35% of their costs. in january 2014, it will go up to 50%. you can have small businesses in excess of 25 who can go into the exchanges. nobody is going to be penalized as a small business because there is no penalty for those businesses with fewer than 50 workers. host: will its drive private insurers out of business? guest: no, insurers will be in better shape.

as you get more people with coverage, it adds business to them. there are a number of insurers we have been working with to our core operating nicely -- we have been working with who are cooperating nicely. guest: the mandate is weak. there remains the question of will young people signed up for coverage that is more expensive for them that in -- then it would have been otherwise. i think that is a real debate. insurers remain concerned. guest: with respect to young adults, as you at older and sicker people because insurers can no longer deny coverage, they cannot charge a discriminatory premium based on health status. the worry the insurers have is there going to add older sicker

people. to make sure premiums are moderated, you have to add younger people who are healthier. the tax credit subsidies provided will disproportionately help younger adults. those subsidies are provided on a sliding scale. the lower your income, the more your tax credit subsidies. young adults in entry-level jobs or who do not have a job will disproportionately benefit from the subsidies. host: we're talking with ron pollack, executive director of families usa, and joseph antos now with the american enterprise institute. the medicaid expansion is going to be paid for by the money we save getting the poor out of emergency rooms and getting the proper preventive care. guest: it would be great if that were true.

study and analysis demonstrates how little money is accounted for by the insurer. it is true will -- it is trivial in a healthy economy that spends $1.5 trillion. guest: if you provide them with primary and preventive care, they are more likely to get it as opposed to waiting for a disease to spread and then need emergency care. there is an interesting aspect of this. we have 50 million people in the country uninsured. all of us who have insurance wind up paying for them. when they need care, they go to an emergency room and cannot pay for it because they are uninsured and do not have the resources to come up with the dollar. all of us wind up paying because

we get a hidden surcharge on our bills. it ultimately translates into higher premiums. as joe was saying, you have $50 billion in uncompensated care. that ultimately means those with insurance with family coverage, it has over $1,000 -- at odds over $1,000 in extra premiums to pay for that. our premiums for that part of what we pay will come down. host: why do you want to stop people from using the emergency room as their primary care? guest: we want to make sure people get the best care possible. that is to get preventive and primary care. at the onset of disease or pain, you want to check it out. you want to get a test for things still a problem does not

spread and cause a much greater health problem or ultimately die. host: instead of seeing a doctor, you wait. you go to the emergency room because you do not have insurance. guest: who plugs up the emergency room? medicaid beneficiaries. just because you have insurance does not mean you have access to health care. there is no guarantee the doctor will be there. the medicare program is scheduled to take enormous amounts of payments away from hospitals and so on. that is unsustainable. it means it will be harder and lot easier for people to see a doctor or get care and hospital. the medicare program rules the

roost. if medicare is paying medicaid rates, we will see million lining up waiting for services. that is not a promise of this law. guest: 4 hospital, it is better to get medicaid payments and then no payment -- for a hospital, is better to get medicaid payments than no payments at all. the affordable care act provides additional funding for primary- care physicians. it will be valuable making sure people have greater access to physicians. it is a significant improvement. guest: goes away in three years, it is a serious detriment. this is a law that puts sugar on the take up front. when that is done, we face serious problems.

congress will have to find ways to make this problem efficient and affordable from the federal budget standpoint. to the line.o democrats. thank you for waiting. caller: i am from pennsylvania. since the democrats and republicans are split down the middle. what is the mindset of the republicans, the poor and middle class, knowing this will help them? john roberts made a good decision. i cannot understand. the man got the republican party talking about him like he is a piece of crap. host: some are calling him a benedict arnold. guest: the more relevant question is where republicans stand on health reform.

the fact is nobody wants a health system that does not work. that is what we have now. unfortunately, the affordable care act did not make any substantial changes. it basically added more money to parts of the help system that do not work. we need to rethink what has already been enacted. host: you can see the debt clock. republicans are asking, can we afford a new tax and new health care program? guest: several things need to be said. the congressional budget office told us it reduces it by $135

billion. in the second year, it does it by one trillion dollars. it creates efficiencies in the system. there are savings achieved by greater efficiencies. in terms of the real concern people have about the federal deficit, this improves end not harms. the question when asked about republicans are on this -- the question wayne asked about where republicans are on this, we have heard repeal and very little to replace. i think republicans are going to be under pressure to find an alternative program. i think the affordable care act

is going forward, especially if the president is reelected. i think it would be great if there were a bipartisan cooperation to improve it. host: what is the aei solution to get young people to buy insurance? guest: the first step is to make health insurance less-expensive. the affordable care act has a requirement for essential benefits people will have to buy more generous coverage than they are able to afford without subsidies. we're in a tight fiscal situation. we're going to have to balance the good intentions of having people have more generous coverage with the reality that people cannot afford it and we cannot afford it. if you have had children in their 20's, you know the last thing they think about is health

insurance. they are invincible. they believe nothing will ever go wrong. we need education. one of the good things is extending coverage through parents policies up to age 26. that requires parents to be aware this is important for their children. it also means they are going to have to look harder. employers are beginning to drop the offer a family coverage precisely because this is costing more money. you go in one direction to make improvements. unfortunately, you have to worry about the reaction. guest: we have these tax credit subsidies. for a young person that feels they may not need health insurance as much as someone older, now we are changing the equation. we're making it more affordable. they are going to get the bulk of the tax credit subsidies because they are more moderate income in entry-level jobs.

i think we will see a lot of young adults gain coverage through provision joe mentioned. they can stay on the apparent policy until they're 26. beyond that, they will get a tax credit subsidies. it will be more appealing to buy coverage. host: we're discussing the health care law sustained by the supreme court. willis -- we welcome our listeners coast to coast. robert is on the phone, glendale, ariz., the wine for republicans. good morning. caller: i am going to make a couple of comments and then hang up and listen off air. i believe obamacare and romney care are the same. someone sent a twitter earlier that made perfect sense to me.

with from the -- with romney care, i do not have to live in massachusetts. as a productive person, i think it is insanity to support what is called obamacare. i am not old enough to be on medicare, but they are being thrown under the bus. it is suicidal to support this act. host: let me ask you a question. we have heard from mitt romney who has said it is a states rights issue. it was good for massachusetts but may not be good for the rest of the country. do you agree with him? caller: yes. what i wish he would say is in massachusetts, i had a local population that wanted this. this is what i had to do. i supported it i thought it was right.

i thought was right for massachusetts. i do not necessarily think it is right for alabama or montana. host: stay on the line. ron pollack. guest: when governor romney signed into law the massachusetts health reform, he not only touted it for massachusetts. he said this is a great model for the nation. he was clear about that. there is greater similarity between romneycare and obamacare then there is between romneycare and ronnie candidate care. he is being politically expedient by taking something he said would be a good model for the nation and now saying i will repeal is on the first day. this is politics, as the whole debate has been. host: robert, we will come back to you. caller: i agree with what the man just said. is the same case with obama.

they're both harvard-educat ed politicians. if you are productive middle- class person, it will cost more than what they are saying. you are looking at the largest tax on the middle class in history. one thing people are not talking about yet is that they are going to hire 30,000 additional irs agents to implement this. they're not hiring 30,000 additional doctors. my wife is a nurse practitioner. a lot of doctors do not take medicaid patients. there are more doctors not taking medicare patients. concierge practices are the old- fashioned way. the patient pays the doctor. host: they are much more expensive. we will get a reaction thank you.

guest: robert is right. there is increasing concern about access to health care. it is absolutely the case if you cut payments by putting millions more people into medicaid and cutting payments, you have cut off the business of the health care sector. -- you have cut half the business of the health care sector. when romney said his model in massachusetts would be a good model for the country, that did not necessarily imply he did not think citizens should have a view. that is not what he thinks. he never said that. romney may be a politician, but he is fairly consistent in saying people ought to have a voice in this matter.

this was a decision made. it is not popular. less than half of america in the latest poll thinks obamacare is a good idea. it clearly says there is a debate here. guest: i do believe governor romney has been consistent, but he has been consistent in his inconsistency. it is true if you look at the surveys that asked people if they support or do not support the affordable care act, there is mixed reaction. if we go into debt, they asked if you like the idea of preventing insurers denied coverage because of pre- existing conditions or providing coverage for those under 26. the support is off the charts. the problem is right now people

are not clear those things are in the form will care act. as that becomes better known, this will give tremendous support. i think president obama is going to cherish the notion this is called obamacare. as people experience these benefits, they will find it is really helpful. guest: it will not help in the election. they will not experience anything until a year later. host: every sunday, we partner by airing sunday programs beginning with nbc's "meet the press." nancy pelosi on with david gregory this morning saying it is not a tax on the american people. it is a penalty for free riders. that is the democratic spin. joseph antos. guest: no question about it. it does not change the fact that

what you are being required to do is buy insurance that for many people is an affordable. -- unaffordable. the question is not what we think about the mandate but what we think about the law. we have divided opinion and major problems. guest: the point you raised is important. the new death penalty if we will hear from republicans is these are taxes on middle-class and all of that. nonsense. it is only going to affect a tiny number of people who can afford health coverage but refused to purchase it. in so doing, they pass on their

bills to everybody else. even she is justice roberts indicated in his opinion -- even chief justice roberts indicated in his opinion this will only affect about 4 million people and not 300 million people as republicans would have us believe. this is not a tax on the middle class. this is not a tax for people around the country. it is saying, you choose to buy coverage so you are paying for it. if you choose not to get it when you can afford it and pass on your bills to everyone else, you are going to have to have some responsibility and pick up part of the cost. host: joe is on the independents' line. caller: this is my experience. i am a self-employed man of 13 years. i have the cross/blue shield. my premiums are seven -- $700 a

month. i am a healthy man. i made a doctors appointment the other day. he told me i cannot give in to see him for a simple blood test until august 6. that is way over a month just to see the doctor. i purchased my health insurance through the free market. i have a blood test every three years. i keep on top of that to see what my health is. i just called the other day to see the doctor. i have over a 35-day wait just to see what my health is. host: a similar point from colorado. having insurance is not the same thing as having health care. guest: they are correct.

we do have a shortage, especially of primary-care doctors. that is not going to be overcome overnight. that is not a problem of affordable care act. it is a problem of where we are as a nation. you ford will care act makes a contribution to the solution -- the affordable care act makes a contribution to the solution. we will have to do much more. the affordable care act does provide additional resources so we can train more primary-care doctors and alleviate the shortage causing joe, ron, and others real problems. this will not be fixed overnight. it takes incremental steps in the right direction. host: nobody is going to like the coverage mandate on all policies. on the democrats' line, good morning. caller: i work in the field, i do not want to name the program.

we take care of the head injuries and spinal cord injuries. these people have guns, motorcycles, rode without thomas, have all of their toys. one thing all of them have in common is they did not spend a penny on health care. what is my constitutional right not to take care of these people? they shoot themselves in the head. they clean their guns. they have their ski trips and everything. i am the middle class productive individual. where is my rights not to pay for their short-side to this -- short-sidedness? host: joseph antos. guest: there is a real question about where you draw lines. as a nation, we decided we're going to take care of people in spite of their stupidity. it does not mean we should turn around and also provide generous

subsidies besides taking care of their serious health problems. generous subsidies so they can maintain that lifestyle that chris is mentioning. to the extent that is happening, that is a serious problem. i would argue as a civil society, we cannot leave these people on the street. guest: chris has a valid point. when somebody who can afford health coverage decides not to purchase it, all those with insurance pay for it. it is inevitable. when the hospital provides care , they have to pass on the bill to those of us with insurance. on average premium for family health coverage raised just to pay for the uncompensated health costs of the uninsured averages

over $1,000 a year. that is inflicted upon those with insurance. the affordable care act said if you cannot afford coverage, you have a responsibility. if you do not fulfill the responsibilities, you will pay a portion of the costs rather than push the costs onto everybody else. host: let me follow-up on this. this is from a veteran. how will i be able to retain my current insurance policy if my employer chooses to stop providing medical benefits and instead paying the penalty? how do you respond? guest: if he is living in a state with the health insurance exchange or the federal exchange gets off the ground, he will be able to buy insurance. if he is a middle-class person, he will not be eligible for significant subsidies. he may not be eligible for subsidy at all.

could be more expensive for him. host: will there be a shift in the supply of health care providers closing or leaving practices? it seems this may be one of the largest unanticipated consequences of the health care law. guest: this is anticipated. we know who joe and ron are having trouble finding a doctor. it has nothing to do with the affordable care act. it is going to add millions of people without coverage. that is good. we still have a shortage of doctors. the affordable care act makes incremental steps to correct that. it is going to be a continuing problem. it is one thing i hope democrats and republicans work together on so we make sure there are increasing numbers of primary-

care doctors. host: join us on our twitter page on the health care law. this person points out the health care law will add $1 trillion or $2 trillion, not to mention the debt interest which may explode at any moment. the next call is from new jersey. caller: think about this in a different way. we can pay for this health care with our taxes. the reason i say that is we have already put the tax money out. the tax money is being put in the wrong areas. i say that because giving loans

givinganies, we're millions of dollars to these companies and they are failing. we're putting billions of dollars into other countries. egypt, every year we give them $1.3 billion. i know we did in different ways and for different reasons. but i am sure they can get along with maybe just $1 billion. that leaves $300 million which would give us $1 million per person in this country for health care. the second item i would like to speak about is the fact of taxes and no one ever mentions. they say 53% of people pay taxes. i think it is smaller than that. host: thank you for the call.

guest: his point is a good one. we have to decide what our priorities are. the president and democrats in congress have decided our priority is to pump $2 trillion into the economy during the first years paid for largely by cutting payments to doctors, hospitals, and medicare. the fact is we have education, energy, environmental issues. we have defense. every issue under the sun. the decision was made in a top- down approach that health is going to be it. now we're going to have trouble. it will be seen next year. trying to deal with the sequester which will take a huge amounts of money out of the federal budget.

a policy that neither democrats nor republicans like, because we did not have the national agreement about how we want to allocate resources in the first place. guest: when we talk about hot- down -- top-down, i call that leadership. he was elected to lead. he has led. congress was elected to decide and have decided. what is interesting is we got new news from the congressional budget office. people thought the supreme court may repeal and strike the entire statute. what will that mean for the budget? the congressional budget office, the non-partisan arbiters, told us if the form will care act was struck, it would add to the deficit by about $250 billion in the next 10 years. these fiscal problems would have been exacerbated had before will

care act been struck. host: a couple of tweets on the table. she points out romney suggested obama should copy romneycare, and he did. you will see the editorial he penned. next is francisco joining us from arlington, virginia. caller: i have some comments. i sincerely believe romney would get far more votes with independents by saying i designed it. it worked well for massachusetts. i am ready to come up with a 2.0 version for the country.

people do not like the denial. people want to hear new possibilities. what we need in the republican party the party base is narrowing. insurance -- reassurance is not being discussed anywhere. that is one area that needs work. there was a paper released called reinsurance. all we had in the republican party was laziness. that is what i think.

we do not have good thinkers right now that come up with new ideas in solutions. host: you are laughing. guest: is tough to be a politician. you cannot make anybody happy. the caller is right. any republican going for high office has to deal with those facts of life. that was true when obama was running for president four years ago, as well. the question really is not in where are we going when romney is not a candidate yet. the issue is not what he says. the question is, what does he say after the convention? what does he say afterward he gets elected? i agree with the caller. when governor romney becomes the nominee absolutely must show leadership to republicans on this issue. guest: the reason governor romney is having problems is that in the republican party, the right hand does not know what the far right hand once.

that is making it very difficult for governor romney to actually come up with a proposal. if he does something that is somewhat reasonable that looks like it is going to in dance policy and -- advanced policy and the far right hand will not let him do that -- is walking a very careful line right here. i think it would be terrific if he gave us his version of health reform now that he has given up on his original version. i do not expect to get much specificity. host: this viewer is saying the democratic congress switched. obamacare is a massive tax that was rammed through congress without knowing what was in it. let us hear a republican voice from james in louisiana. welcome. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i understand that we support the

bill, but i would appreciate total honesty. what about abortion india for all care act -- in the affordable correct? guest: i would just caller what we've learned it from people in the catholic health associations and the nuns who do not want abortion. they said, as clearly as they could, this is not a bill designed to promote abortions. host: bishops feel differently. guest: there is no question that the bishops and the nuns feel differently. frankly, i think many people are more prepared to side with the nuns and then they are with the bishops. host: good morning democrat. caller: just had a couple of

comments. i believe if the congress and the federal employees had to pay 20% of their medical costs, just like the people on medicare do, that would save the country a lot of money because they get their health insurance covered 100%. if you ever saw the queens jubilee, those people are on national health care. they did not look like they were dying. they all looked pretty healthy. host: okay. kiki for the call from wisconsin. -- thank you for the call from wisconsin. guest: can assure the caller that i paid my insurance is in deductibles just like everybody else. the fact is, it is a good plan. we have a lot of choices in place. but, it is an employer-sponsored plan. it is very similar to the plans

available in most large companies today. it is not available in smaller companies because frankly, it is too expensive. could that program be cut back? could it be made more economical? absolutely. the idea of the affordable care act is to give the public something more comfortable -- comparable to what congress receives. host: the executive director of families usa polisand see scholar focusing on retirement issues for the american enterprise institute, a thank you for being with us. please come back again. we are going to take a short break and so often on this program, our viewers are saying you want to weigh in on whatever is on your minds. we will have open phones in just a few minutes. >> "washington journal" continues. it is sunday morning, july 1. we are back in a minute.

>> >> next weekend, had to the -- next weekend had to the capital with "book tv" in jefferson city, missouri. saturday at noon eastern, literary life on c-span2. we talk about family life and sign the governor's mansion. also, a butcher's bill, a business contract, a provisions list from the ancient mesopotamia. the stories behind eight manager babylonian clay tablets. sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern, on american history tv -- >> this was called the bloodiest 47 acres in america. >> former warden takes you through the missouri state penitentiary. also, walk back through history in the halls of the missouri state capitol and governor's mansion. once a month, c-span's vehicles explore the history and literary life of cities across america.

next weekend from jefferson city, missouri. saturday at noon and sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2 and c-span3. >> this is the conversation we need to have in this country that nobody is willing to have. what role should the government play in housing finance? >> int "reckless endangerment" the author detail the subprime lending collapse, the 2008 meltdown, and one issue -- government subsidize homeownership. >> if you want to subsidize housing in this country and the populist agrees that it is something we should, put it on the balance sheet and make it clear. make it evident. make everybody aware of how much it will cost them. when you deliberately -- delivered through third-party or through public companies with private shareholders and executives who can extract a lot of subsidy for

themselves, that is not a very good way of subsidizing home ownership. thatink we have seen ne before. >> more tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." 202-737-0>> "washington journal" continues. host: aback. back. we are the phone numbers are on the screen. e-mail us at journal@c-span.org or find us on twitter @cspanwj or facebook at facebook.com/cspan.

host: robert green is following all of this and what it means for the american people in this election year. he is on the phone as a principal at a firm in berlin. as you try to assess the ruling and the perspective of the american people in your own surveys, what have you learned? guest: well, we have learned that the public is still split the same -- half and half between those who favor the act and those who do not. this has been pretty true now. certainly when we looked at in march in our last poll for c- span, we basically saw the same

split then that we see now. host: this is been a national conversation you had been having as you have been seeing the anticipation of the ruling and then since then -- have you learned anything new guest: or: -- new or different? guest: absolutely. when you conduct a poll, you sample individuals to gauge the opinion of the entire group. that is at to know. we are doing something behavioral. in essence, we are scraping all public news sources as well as social platforms. that includes facebook, twitter, youtube. host: we have a chart you provided. i know you are familiar from january through june. you are able to see a health care reform is in red.

the president is in blue. there are spikes. we the charge. tell us what it means in terms of what you reference to digital intelligence. guest: this is what we are seeing that is so interesting about a level of digital chatter. what you see in this chart is the level of digital chatter concerning the president, the blue line, and the supreme court, the red line. the timeframe is literally the last six months. the big blue spikes on the left reflects the state of the union. that big blue spike on the left. the blues bike that you see two- thirds of the way down reflects the burst of chatter in conversation on the digital universe when the president announced his evolving views on same-sex marriage. the red line on the charge reflects the supreme court.

it is typically lower than what the president is doing. if you look at late march, exactly at the time of the oral arguments, you see the red line actually crosses the blue line. if you look at the end of the graph, which would literally be thursday and friday of last week, the 28 and 29, that is where you see health care reform. the supreme court gains for more attention than the state of the union. this is a very big event in the digital universe. host: as you survey all of this, is the sampling of more precise? guest: it is not about precision. it is basically that what you see in this kind of analysis is

-- what is wonderful if you get confirmation of some of the things you see in polling. it is basically our way of thinking polling mean sexual behavior. what was so interesting to us is -- actual behavior. what is so interesting to us is in the march c-span poll, people told us they were really going to pay attention. what you see here is they really did. host: 1 let us start we want to bring to your attention. we talk about digital -- one last chart we want to bring to your attention. we talk about digital intervention on single day event. the death of osama bin laden. the state of the union. the death of steve jobs. guest: yes. we found this absolutely fascinating. think of the digital universe.

chatter and conversation far more than simply facebook or twitter. in this graphic, you see five major events of the last two years. then you see the level of digital interaction occurring on any single day. again, just for comparison points, we brought up speed of the union. all the way to the left is the president's last state of the union address. next to it is the death of osama bin laden. that was last may. in the middle, in the red, that reflects the extraordinary amount of chatter and conversation and just on last thursday. just in one day, concerning the supreme court and health care reform. that is not all the discussion or a. moving to the right, you see the

two really defining events of the last two years. that is the death of steve jobs as well as the sopa situation. the one all the way to the right -- they are tied. the single day event that is the absolute biggest in the american digital universe was the sopa situation and then steve jobs was virtually the same. here is the key. again comment it -- again, and it tracks so well with othe polling, they are paying attention. that is indicated by the red. i will say one last thing. this is certainly true about what happened last thursday with the supreme court. on began days, we see more twitter -- big event days, we see more twitter. twitter has an important place.

days, you see more on twitter because it is more democratic. let me make that clear. literally democratic. a much bigger percentage of them occur on twitter compared with regular day. that is where basically people shift. you know, it is interesting. on any given day, there are thousands and thousands of and chatter.s int chatte there are far more people rushing into the public forum. last thursday was an extraordinary day in the life of the digital universe. increasingly, the digital universe is the town square of american life. that is where we exist, politically. host: robert green keeping track

of how american people are viewing the conversation on the number of key issues. most recently the health care ruling. joining us on the phone in washington. thank you for your time and perspective. you can follow us on our own twitter page and keep track of our programming on our website at c-span.org. let us go to can. republican line. cincinnati, ohio. good morning. caller: i host a radio show here in cincinnati. a couple of questions i brought up on my show. one was, why did justice kagen not to recuse yourself cle -- herself? this makes the tax code more complicated. i do not think the health care plan will work. how can we trust this to happen when we have an administration that put on $five trillion in new debt?

it will not save money. host: thank you for the call. what is your read station? caller: wbbz. host: the elections are taking place today in mexico. a look at the legacy six years in office. one term under mexican rule. felipe calderon and the pri nominee likely to win. we will have more on this tomorrow morning on "washington journal." next is built from pittsburgh. welcome to the program. democrats' line. caller: with regard to your last guest about digital, i find it fascinating that there are more people rushing to digital. i think they are looking for the truth. your last caller talked about trust. that seems to be where america is falling short.

he said at the beginning of this section, what does it mean for the united states -- the decision of the supreme court? we go back to the great philosophers who said, when there is no truth, there is only manipulation. host: thank you. "deale indeed journal -- deale lannan journal constitution." -- "the alana journal constitution." host: heather is on the phone from nashville, tennessee. open phones for this morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to give a shot out to the seniors in the audience. 50 or above. i heard tim geithner testified on c-span a while ago that they

are waiting to get the aca upheld an accord, which just happened on thursday. in order to raise their age for medicare eligibility. in other words, this is a fall back so that they can now raise the age for seniors. they did not state that target age in the hearing. that was the implication. i wanted all the seniors out there to get on the phone to your congressional members. you are nearing retirement, you may have to change your plans because you may find yourself in this exchange. that is basically my message. host: thank you. magazine -- cina --

that is linda from santa barbara, california. good morning. good morning, linda? caller: hello. i was going to say that just because people are talking about something does not mean that they understand the subject, especially if you consider that tweeting allows a hundred 40 characters. you know, you are making a wisecrack about something. i thought that was sort of a pointless exercise. people need to understand what is happening in our country. i think the level of understanding gets less and less. host: could to make the argument that between twitter and facebook and what you find on the web from news organizations that there is a lot more at your disposal now than even five years ago?

collectively, it is a way to have a conversation and share information? guest: do i feel that -- caller: the wide field? yes, to a certain extent. how deep is your knowledge in the conversation. does anybody check that? host: good question. thank you. "politico" has a question on the website -- did roberts flip? was he initially with his fellow conservatives and then changes the point? there are instances in which some think he changed his vote on this issue. "the washington post" rights to -- -- writes the following --

they're trying to make this easier for the reader to understand. greta's on the phone from new jersey. caller: i agree that the more information that comes out about the affordable health care, the more people will like it. earlier, there was the topic about which party has the vision for the future. i think the republicans and the corporate buddies have the same edition, to eventually get rid of gernment. privatize all government programs. for decades, they have wanted that. think about this. all government is gone. the programs are privatized. who will be left to pay for the services? host: update.

thank you for the call. related news from local the richmond times" -- the denver newspaper is reporting the fires in colorado springs area are 45% contained with more than 300 homes damaged or destroyed. "l.a. times" -- another u.s. manufacturer is looking to sell overseas. the push to sell the drone is causing new concerns here in the u.s.. asking the question, where will the browns' end up? michael is on the phone from new york city. good morning. caller: good morning. i think i can tell you the reason that roberts came out with his decision. he was dealing with supreme courts in europe.

he was asked this question -- if the private system is the way to go, white is the u.s. 48 in light expand his seat? -- in life expectancy? one of the key things you look at his life expectancy. it is kind of funny because i was overseas for two years. i took a sabbatical from university. i was with a biotechnology group. we were interviewing doctors from france and italy. they had a life expectancy of 11 years longer than the u.s. not only do they live years longer, the doctors live 11 years longer.

a 48% life expectancy proves the system has been a failure. host: thank you for the call. differing viewpoints on twitter -- host: 10 in the conversation. douglas, georgia. good morning. republican line. caller: good morning. i have a comment on illegal immigration. why do we continue to spend tax dollars building fences when census has proven not to work? i think we should be building a wall similar to the wall israel has. concrete and steel so high they cannot get over it. so deep in the ground they cannot tunnel under it. so thick they cannot go through it.

it extended from border to border so they cannot go around it. host: edward from wisconsin, you are next. good morning. caller: good morning. i have three comments. thank you for taking my call. on the health care, i think it was a really good idea. i think it is about time. second, i think we should all be standing up and applauding our democrats in office. i think it was the right thing to do. thirdly, something that none of these news programs -- is the affects the health care bill will have to on the unemployment rate. you are throwing 30 million people into the medical field -- medical system and i predict that in the next three years, there is going to be a major boom in building hospitals, doctors' offices, and probably

putting 90% of these kids that came out of school on medical degrees to work instantly. there is no way you can throw 30 million people into the system and not have major impacts. host: that is one of the things we focused on on our roundtable. this will be an issue we will continue to focus on as it unfolds in terms of its impact on the states, insurance companies and individuals, and in this campaign. from "the new york times" -- host: one other note from "the new york times" -- a look at the decisions by the u.s. supreme court. you can see how the justices

decided on those. the story is also available online at their website. we will continue the conversation at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. all this week, we are focusing on foreign news bureaus here in d.c. melanie nelson will look at another supreme court ruling -- melanie mason will look at another supreme court ruling. christopher wilson will also join us. we will look at the mexican elections with him. that is all tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. thank you for joining us. enjoy the rest of your weekend. happy fourth of july. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]